OT: This is why there are "denialists"...

Oh yes Michael...the resident metalworking troll.

Did the kids beat you up Mikey on the playground when you told lies?

I suspect that you were a bully...bullies always wait to attack when they have a crowd to back them.

TMT

Libertarian

riday on a massive

s global warming

e globe hasn't

ot be finished until

oponents are still

nterest favors and

or nothing to curb

become a Christmas

ists."

it -

warming for awhile...

energy-cap.html

will have read

the bill will

in has

en" jobs.

009/06/24/AR200...

gling fools.

clear winner

speaks in

glamorous

his only

has to

been the worst.

but your

most everything... and still is.

O.

true,

ut

ade

ur,

ver

er

t

fe"

61

ully

e

How do you know I do not know anything?

It would seem that I know that Bush is responsible for many disasters and you do not.

Millions of Americans agree with me..that is why we now have a Democratic President..very likely for two terms.

So it would seem that you are the one who credibility is in question.

TMT

But you are deeply sympathetic to their principles - and you have more in common with Jim thn you like to think.

News to me. The economics pages of the Volkskrant and the NRC Handelsblad haven't mentioned it so far, as they would have done if there was any serious money involved.

Not any longer, much to my disgust.

My inrtellect doesn't seem to be massive enough to find me a job in the Netherlands. Your voluminous advice on the subject might well be useful if I were job-hunting in California, but it has proved less than effective in the Netherlands.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

If you actually read news:rec.crafts.metalworking instead of just trolling you would have seen a few of my projects.

--
You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

You still haven't answered John's question, because he's right.

Yawn. What lies? You are the world class liar here. You are another dimbulb.

Yawn. You are the one who thinks you can bully people. You have moved to stage two of your usual M.O., of changing the subject, rather than answer questions.

--
You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

He can read the drivel you post. You have advanced brain rot, where everything is someone else's fault.

Yawn. The sheeple vote the way the media tells them to, just like every other election.

John has credibility. You don't now, and never have had any on this newsgroup or anywhere else I've seen you trolling, so you can't question John's, or anyone else on this group.

Another anonymous coward.

--
You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

I believe in doing what works best for everybody. Is that your definition of radical? Jim apparently believes in whatever's best for himself. You apparently believe in pontificating but doing nothing.

Read something real, like Aviation Week.

Then use your sparkling personality.

John

If Karl Marx had lived in Chicago instead of London, he would have written some very different books.

The British landlord system was grotesque - useless twits owned the land and drank/wenched/hunted foxes while the workers owned nothing and paid rent.

Don't they still have people with hereditary titles, addressed as "Lord", in England? Doesn't some Duke still own big chunks of London?

John

We just got a Bridgeport, a real classic 1960-s vintage monster. It's heavy, but fortunately we have a vintage forklift, too. One of my guys is stripping it and tuning it up. You can get parts on Ebay. I wanted to paint it bright red or yellow, but he want ahead and used grey. How boring.

The Taiwanese mills are OK, but they're not classy like a Bridgeport.

We also have an n/c Sherline, which is great for small electronic type stuff.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Sherline.JPG

What sort of mill do you have? Readout? N/C?

John

Not really. I suspect the hard bitten Victorian era industrialists in the US were every bit as big and bad and nasty as their UK counterparts.

Not true. Your description is a parody of the real situation.

There was an underclass of manual workers in the industrial revolution. They also drank/wenched, ate poorly and died young of tuberculosis. Life was pretty good for the emerging middle classes and merchants though.

And there were some notable family firms that are still global brands today who did treat their workers fairly. Cadbury, Bournville and Pilkington being obvious examples (usually but not always Quaker).

The rest treated their manual workers as expendable - particularly mining, chemicals and the iron & steel industry. Treat em mean and keep em keen. The textile manufacturers were pretty lethal too. Over stoking the boilers at the start of a shift created sufficient annihilation catastrophes in the mills that boiler inspection was made mandatory.

Yes. And a few of them got a title in perpetuity by killing someone for the King in some dim and distant dark deed. But many more are Victorian industrialists or their descendants. There are also modern day life peers and other titles that the monarch can bestow.

Duke of Westminster. He still owns a large fraction (in value) of the country and a lot of it in London. I think the third largest landowner after the Queen and the Church of England. It may amuse you to know that he owns the freehold of the land on which the US Embassy stands in London at Grovenor Square (his family name).

He isn't a useless twit either. He is a very astute businessman.

Although I will concede that some of the UK aristocracy is most definitely the cream of society - "rich, thick and clotted".

Regards, Martin Brown

But interaction with industrialists is mostly voluntary. And the US was giving big chunks of land - permament ownership - to anyone willing to farm or mine it. Game and fish were plentiful and free... poaching wasn't necessary. And we had no king, no lords, no hereditary seats in government, no distinct classes (except for natives and slaves), far less poverty than England, not much in the way of colonies,and we mostly tried to keep out of wars.

Read some Jane Austen, Scott, Dickens, or some real history of the time.

I suppose "some" and "emerging" weren't enough to placate Marx, or Dickens for that matter. Marx's objections were plenty valid; but he didn't really understand technology or economics, or even human nature, so his methods were all wrong.

John

Just like the US bureaucracy - the scum floats to the top.

Thanks, Rich

Libertarian

Friday on a massive

global warming

globe hasn't

be finished until

proponents are still

special-interest favors and

nothing to curb

become a Christmas

lobbyists."

warming for awhile...

will have read

bill will

has

jobs.

Bungling fools.

clear winner

speaks in

glamorous

only

to

the worst.

your

everything... and still is.

true,

There's no hint that you do. Since you know nothing about electronics, tell us about your metalworking tools. Black&Decker drill? A couple of files? Tin snips?

What business are you in?

John

ke

Under your - ineffective - electoral spending rules, the sheeple vote for the candidate who spends most on on 90-second spot ads on telelvision.

Barak Obama had the wit to realise that if he could mobilise enough supporters, he could raise more money from the electorate at large than McCain could raise from the oil industry and the military industrial complex. This isn't exactly democratic, but it does mean that Obama really is the candidate who appealled to the larger electorate.

Only with people as dim as you

But only when he talks about electronics. Once he gets outside that area, he regularly proves himself to be a sucker for the sort of half- baked propaganda that is produced to make Republicans feel good about themselves.

Says Michael A. Terrell, whose opinion on any subject can be predicted from what John Larkin and Jim Thompson have already said.

-- Bil Sloman, Nijmegen.

Libertarian

Friday on a massive

global warming

globe hasn't

be finished until

proponents are still

special-interest favors and

nothing to curb

become a Christmas

lobbyists."

warming for awhile...

will have read

bill will

has

jobs.

Bungling fools.

clear winner

speaks in

glamorous

only

to

the worst.

your

everything... and still is.

true,

Not enough millions:

His approval differential was +6 points when that was done, in March. It's now below zero.

John

ass

Unfortunately, it took capital to clear the lad for farming, or dig down to the ore to start mining. "Taking up a selection" - to use the Australian term - wasn't an option open to the working class.

In fact you had families with money,who were very conscious of their higher social class and perfectly willing to explot their superior politcal influence. Their superiority wasn't wrtten into law as it was

- for the hereditary peerage - in the UK, but you did have a perfectly obvious class structure, and you've still got it.

All very commendible, but irrelevant.

Trollope is a rather better authority on the lower ranks of the aristocracy and the antics of the people who were on the verge of falling out of the favoured classes. Jane Austen knew all about it, but wasn't all that interested in that aspect of social mobility.

Marx was a socialist, not a communist - despite the lip service paid to him by the Russain communist party. His understanding of economics might have been imperfect, but it was infinitely better than that of any of his contemporaries, and his insights revolutionised economics. In so far as Marx had an economic method, it lived on in the Fabian society's statistical approach to social and economic questions, which is the current norm for serious political and economic argument - which is to say it is about as far from "all wrong" as it could be.

You do make a habit of saying silly things aout subjects that you don't understand, but you've outdone yourself here.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmmm, who wrote "The Communist Manifesto"? Whoever it was, was a true idiot.

' "On the other hand, Marx argued that socio-economic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class, led by a Communist Party: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." '

Must have been some other Marx, perhaps a brother.

He was all wrong - or soon would be - about "the means of production" and the position of labor.

Like most leftists, he was clueless about technology, so he couldn't imagine the effects on society of a twentyfold increase in productivity. He probably would have predicted mass unemployment.

John

.

ass

ts.

n.

ife

Marx and Engles - neither generally regardede as idiots.

The word "communist" in 1848 didn't have the meaning that it has acquired since.

Nope. The problem lies in your incapacity to understand the meaning of what was being said at time that it was being said. You see the word "communist" and think that in 1848 it meant to the intended readers what it now means to you in 2009, when your understanding of the word is mainly shaped by way senatr Joseph McCarthy used the word in 1950.

Would you care to specify what part of his analysis you object to? The url you point to seems more intent on defining the terms than making assertion about the relationship between "the means of production" and "the position of labour".

Since his work is - in part - analysis of the effects of the increased productivity of the workers as a consequence of the industrial revolution, it seems bizarre to claim that he was either clueless about technology or incapable of predicting the effects of further increases in productivity. As far as I know, Marx himself had no direct involvement in technology, but his close collaborator - Friedrich Engels - was active in the textile business after it had been extensively mechanised. Marx's mother, Henriette n=E9e Pressburg (1788=961863), was the great-aunt of industrialists Gerard Philips and Anton Philips, who set up the Philips electric light company, so his relatives could also have told him a thing or two about technology.

This seems unlikely.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

McCarthy used it to mean "Soviet spies who work within the US government." He wanted them out, which was a perfectly reasonable attitude. He was mostly right, as subsequent hard evidence has shown.

Speaking about clueless-on-technology, how's the job hunt coming?

John